Evolution or Creationism? What you believe?

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Only by fundamentalists. They are not the majority of Christians.IppoTenma

I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Ed_Cetera

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Noskillkill

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

[QUOTE="IppoTenma"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]shouldn't even be a question. Creationism is obsolete and outdated, and, quite honestly, being a creationist automatically excludes you from any kind of intellectual discussion in the real world. hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Noskillkill

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

When you think theory, think ofa working set of rules that defines a body of knowledge.

shouldn't even be a question. Creationism is obsolete and outdated, and, quite honestly, being a creationist automatically excludes you from any kind of intellectual discussion in the real world. hamstergeddon

we believe in Creationism so we are unintelligent?? are you joking? our beliefs dictate our intellectual status?? are you frikken joking? what a childish way to reason. "HAR HAR DAR HAR YOU BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM YOUR STUUUPIDDD."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] Almost every average religious person that I have talked to about this (average Christians--as they make up the vast majority of where I live), have approached this "evolution vs creation" question as a one or the other "belief". Most of them reject evolution and defend creationism. Eh...this isn't going to go anywhere as there isn't really a way to quantify what either of us are saying. :P_en1gma_

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Noskillkill

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

The meaning of "theory" in this context is completely different than the word's meaning in mundane usage. Evolution is called a theory as it is an explanation of many facts, and natural selection most certaainly is a fact, as is mutation and inheritance.

I wish people would learn the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis.

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.Noskillkill

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="IppoTenma"]That WAS a joke...right?IppoTenma

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="IppoTenma"]That WAS a joke...right?IppoTenma

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

[QUOTE="Ed_Cetera"]I don't have to "believe" in evolution, since it is a proven fact.drj077

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

[QUOTE="IppoTenma"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] Almost every average religious person that I have talked to about this (average Christians--as they make up the vast majority of where I live), have approached this "evolution vs creation" question as a one or the other "belief". Most of them reject evolution and defend creationism. Eh...this isn't going to go anywhere as there isn't really a way to quantify what either of us are saying. :P_en1gma_

[QUOTE="IppoTenma"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No. I honestly believe if you have such uninformed beliefs you should be denied a seat at intelligent debates. Not all Christians are Creationists but the worst sort usually are. hamstergeddon

Criterion for Creationism: 1) The world is 6,000 years old 2) God created all creatures as they are today (Evolution is a lie) 3) God created all the world in 7 dayshamstergeddon

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

Noskillkill

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

which is why it is the THEORY of evolution?

i think the two co-exist.

Noskillkill

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

Dear God...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

drj077

I think Wikipedia covers it quite well.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Criterion for Creationism: 1) The world is 6,000 years old 2) God created all creatures as they are today (Evolution is a lie) 3) God created all the world in 7 daysLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

[QUOTE="drj077"]

Actually, it's not called the Law of Evolution, because science doesn't deal in absolutes anymore unlike when Newtonian Physics were described. Ifscience did, then it would be a law.

drj077

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

As the modern media and politicians use the terms: Creationist is synonymous with fundamentalist. hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="drj077"]

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

metroidfood

I think Wikipedia covers it quite well.

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

Yeah, that's a far better explanation.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]Criterion for Creationism: 1) The world is 6,000 years old 2) God created all creatures as they are today (Evolution is a lie) 3) God created all the world in 7 dayshamstergeddon

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

Noskillkill

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

[QUOTE="drj077"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

Which is ...why...its called ....the Theory of Evolution... **see above quote**;)

Noskillkill

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

Personally, I think that allowing any given faith, book, or scientific belief to control your ideals is unwise. A collection of knowledge, wisdom, and experience often illuminates the appropriate life answers. However, listening to the interpretation of knowledge or faith by others and then basing your ideals upon that won't help you. You have to do it by yourself.

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

[QUOTE="drj077"]

I think you misunderstand. There will likely never be another "Law" of science described, because scientists don't use that term anymore. However, Law and Theory are nearly interchangeable when you deal with observations at the macroscopic level. It's only when you deal with matter at the quantum level that you can no longer describe anything in terms of absolutes.

_glatisant_

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

ummmm....im going to asume those are different species, listed in the sequence they evolved, and one of the later of the list is human??? see, i just have trouble believing it. i just wish that people installed video cameras in the pastso that these damn confusing and conflicting debates didnt happen

Evolution, but I am still a spiritual person due to certain circumstances.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Literal creationism perhaps.....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

Noskillkill

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

ummmm....im going to asume those are different species, listed in the sequence they evolved, and one of the later of the list is human??? see, i just have trouble believing it. i just wish that people installed video cameras in the pastso that these damn confusing and conflicting debates didnt happen

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] As the modern media and politicians use the terms: Creationist is synonymous with fundamentalist. hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

im only a freshmen in highschool so im not too sure i understand. but i know that the inetelligent definition of a theory is something i am unable to COMPLETELY comprehend. but im sure that evolution is not TOTALLY PROVEN and that it has DISPROVEN Creationism. i believe that God created animals, and that the animals evolved. not into humans though. is there anything wrong with that though? have i not taken into consideration any scientific or religious factors?

Noskillkill

How about Australopithicens afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis for starters?

ummmm....im going to asume those are different species, listed in the sequence they evolved, and one of the later of the list is human??? see, i just have trouble believing it. i just wish that people installed video cameras in the pastso that these damn confusing and conflicting debates didnt happen

Actually Homo heidelbergensis is our common ancester with Neanderthals, but that's the gist. And you should study the biology behindevolution before writing it off out of personal incredulity. Natural selection, mutation and inheritance are all established facts.

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well because the media and politicians misuse the term does not mean creation and evolution are mutually exclusive. Any of the three Abrahamic religions believes in creation. And evolution is not an issue against this belief. One can believe in both. Thus the question was not in proper format and missing some options on the poll.LJS9502_basic

well here is what i want to say. this is what i say is what happens.

Evolution can be true, but it makes no sense where they came from. thats where Creationism comes in. God made the first organisms, and he sat back and let it go into action as they evolved. The two intertwine in that way in my head. sorry but that wont change for me.

I think that Evolution is a fact. I don't believe in Creationism, but think that a person can accept both.btaylor2404

I should have stated that by evolution I was more referring to the evolution from the ape to homo sapien vs creationism, the fact that everything was created by a "creator" in short interval of time.

No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. hamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. LJS9502_basic

LJS9502_basic, thank you. everyone here is trying to tell me all these little facts and words i barely even know, im only 14. but i just think God created creatures, creatures evolved. cant it be like that?

well here is what i want to say. this is what i say is what happens.

Evolution can be true, but it makes no sense where they came from. thats where Creationism comes in. God made the first organisms, and he sat back and let it go into action as they evolved. The two intertwine in that way in my head. sorry but that wont change for me.

Noskillkill

Ahh, you mean you don't believe in abiogenesis. I find it more plausable than an interventionist God, but I'm happy to leave this discussion at that.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. Noskillkill

LJS9502_basic, thank you. everyone here is trying to tell me all these little facts and words i barely even know, im only 14. but i just think God created creatures, creatures evolved. cant it be like that?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. Noskillkill

LJS9502_basic, thank you. everyone here is trying to tell me all these little facts and words i barely even know, im only 14. but i just think God created creatures, creatures evolved. cant it be like that?

They are just trying to guide you in the right direction. If you are interested in this stuff, do some research on these words you don't understand._en1gma_

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"]They are just trying to guide you in the right direction. If you are interested in this stuff, do some research on these words you don't understand.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. LJS9502_basic

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"] No, because if you're a Creationist you automatically do not believe in Evolution and vice versa. They ARE mutually exclusive. _glatisant_

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

[QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No they are not. If you are relligious you believe in creation. That does not mean you don't accept evolution. You are not correct.

LJS9502_basic

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

They are as the TC clearly intends the term.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="_glatisant_"]

This is ridiculous. What most people mean by "creationism" is not technically all that word means. As the term is much more commonly used, creationism involves the rejection of evolution. It can mean that one believes that a deity merely created the universe, but the vast majority of the time, the former is what is intended, as is the case with this thread.

_glatisant_

They are as the TC clearly intends the term.

[QUOTE="Noskillkill"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No they are not. If you are relligious you believe in creation. That does not mean you don't accept evolution. You are not correct.

LJS9502_basic

LJS9502_basic, thank you. everyone here is trying to tell me all these little facts and words i barely even know, im only 14. but i just think God created creatures, creatures evolved. cant it be like that?

but it isn't it.

If so, what the **** God? Why did you created parasites?

They are not mutually exclusive....LJS9502_basic

LJS, the term "creationist" in almost all cases is used to mean young-earth creationist. That does not change the fact that evolution and religion can coexist, but that evolution and (young earth) creationism cannot. I don't see why you're so stubbornly arguing over definitions here. :?chessmaster1989